Usually these questions are 'Could Germany have won' or 'Could the Japanese have won' so I thought I'd try something different.....

If you were either Tojo or Hitler, what would you have need to do in order to achieve your objectives either without war with the US or forcing the US out of the war?

Thoughta appreciated.

cheers
Phil

ZFBoxcar

26 Oct 04,, 01:19

Nothing short of nuclear weapons and a delivery system for firing them at the US would have made them consider dropping out. As this was completely impossible, theres noway the US would have just left the war, and the thought of a Japanese or a German invasion of North America is laughable. The Japanese army was only a slightly more advanced version of a WWI army and it was all engaged in China. The Germans had 80% of their forces fighting the USSR and the other 20% trying to hold back the Western Allies. As for keeping the US out of the war...hmm. Make FDR lose the election. Other than that there isn't much I can think of. The Japanese would have been starved for oil supplies because of the US embargo, so if they hadn't launched their attack, they would have been slowly ripped apart by the people's of Asia and maybe, eventually, a concerted effort by the British Empire and the Soviets. There really was no winning strategy for Togo or Hitler involving the US remaining neutral, considering the lend lease program and the embargo against Japan.

Kipruss

26 Oct 04,, 09:56

Pearl Harbour (the movie) is playing on TV as I type and that must have seemed like a good idea to the Japanese at the time. Perhaps if the aircraft carriers had been caught???

EPA

25 Feb 05,, 05:55

If Sea lion the invasion by the germans into britan would have been a succsess. the Germans would have to go against the states. It was in Mein Kampf II If the Japs would have Beat us at Midway that would have really made a mess for the Americans in the Pacific i mean that would be it for our carriers. The Yorktown, Enterprize i think the Hornet. But all of out carriers in that time were. Uss Enterprize, Hornet, Lexington, Saratoga, Wasp, and the Yorktown. We did lose the Yorktown. But The japs lose a few too these are the japs carriers of that time. Akagi, Hiryu, Kaga, Rjuho, Tsuruisaki, Shokaku, Soryu, Zuikaku and what id the japs invaded hawii. The Germans pounding at the East coast and The Japs at the pacific.

bonehead

26 Feb 05,, 02:36

Aside from a handfull of uboats, germany had nothing to pound on the east coast with. Germany's best bet was to occupy England. This would have made an allied invasion of europe much more difficult. The united states had far more industrial might than Germany and Japan combined. There was also very little Germany or Japan could do about it. The loss of american carriers in the pacific could have been replaced. The war would have been longer, but the result would have been the same.
If Germany had attacked Russia in 1939 and made Russia surrender before attacking western europe, Germany may have been too strong to invade in the 1940's. If England was forced out as well, America may have thought differently about invading europe. Japan was doomed from the start. Pearl harbor would have been avenged at any cost.

Officer of Engineers

26 Feb 05,, 03:25

If Sea lion the invasion by the germans into britan would have been a succsess. the Germans would have to go against the states. It was in Mein Kampf II If the Japs would have Beat us at Midway that would have really made a mess for the Americans in the Pacific i mean that would be it for our carriers. The Yorktown, Enterprize i think the Hornet. But all of out carriers in that time were. Uss Enterprize, Hornet, Lexington, Saratoga, Wasp, and the Yorktown. We did lose the Yorktown. But The japs lose a few too these are the japs carriers of that time. Akagi, Hiryu, Kaga, Rjuho, Tsuruisaki, Shokaku, Soryu, Zuikaku and what id the japs invaded hawii. The Germans pounding at the East coast and The Japs at the pacific.

You should stop basing your theories on computer games.

TopHatter

26 Feb 05,, 03:55

The united states had far more industrial might than Germany and Japan combined. There was also very little Germany or Japan could do about it. The loss of american carriers in the pacific could have been replaced. The war would have been longer, but the result would have been the same.
Japan was doomed from the start. Pearl harbor would have been avenged at any cost.

Agreed. Once Japan made a "cowardly stabbed-us-in-the-back" sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, virtually all isolationism and pacifism in the United States melted away like a snowball in hell. There was not a thing in the world, short of an atomic attack (already pointed out) that could have stopped the United States from turning Home Islands into the parking lot that it became by 1945.
There could have been drastic setbacks, and the public was certainly appalled at the casualties at Betio and other islands, but by and large, it was going to be a fight to the death.
Ironically however, if the Japanese had not surrendered when they did, it's possible that Operation Downfall would have shared the spotlight with a typhoon. (Having just been through 4 hurricanes, I can assure you that they suck big time)

Bill

26 Feb 05,, 14:50

"Pearl Harbour (the movie) is playing on TV as I type and that must have seemed like a good idea to the Japanese at the time. Perhaps if the aircraft carriers had been caught???"

Bingo.

The US carriers go down at Pearl, and the entire war in Pacific is written completely differently...at least until 1943. Had the US lost at Midway in 42, the entire US west coast would've been naked to a Japanese invasion.

Bill

26 Feb 05,, 14:52

Operation Downfall would've cost the Japanese anywhere between 10 and 25 million dead(along with a million plus estimated US/Allied dead).

They're better off having been nuked than to have had to face Downfall.

Bill

26 Feb 05,, 14:54

"The Japanese army was only a slightly more advanced version of a WWI army and it was all engaged in China."

While poorly armed by US standards, Japanese infantry and Marine forces were TREMENDOUSLY highly motivated, and generally well led.
They were also spread throughout the Pacific in huge numbers....they were NOT all in China as you state.

Thank god for the AVG though. Without the Tigers all of Asia could've been lost to the Japanese.

ZFBoxcar

26 Feb 05,, 15:13

I wasn't referring their motivation or leadership, only the technical aspects. And you're right, they were all over Asia, but were not the majority of their forces in China?

Bill

26 Feb 05,, 15:20

"but were not the majority of their forces in China?"

Perhaps, but there were still over a million of the "screaming yellow bastards" all over the pacific islands that the Marines and Army had to root out and kill one cave and bunker at a time.

Officer of Engineers

26 Feb 05,, 17:28

The Pacific War was mainly fought by the IJN. 75% of the IJA and 50% of the air force was in China. The Pacific Islands themselves tend to lend to a WWI type combat. There was virtually no manouver room. And the hilly terrain was a natural trench line.

lwarmonger

26 Feb 05,, 23:03

Germany's best chance to win was to beat the Soviet Union. If Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union during 1941-1943, then it is difficult to see how America could have launched a successful invasion of Europe with Germany's moblile forces not tied down elsewhere and their industrial capacity largely devoted to turning out aircraft (to beat Britian). Germany was quite far ahead of anyone else in terms of jet fighters and rockets, so had they defeated the SU, they would have most likely started turning out jet fighters in larger numbers (to end the American/British bombing raids). That would have negated America's nuclear advantage, as we would have had no means of delivering our atomic weapons. While I could not see a successful invasion of Britain by Germany during WWII even if they had beaten the Soviets, FDR's options would have been few at that point, and a negotiated peace the most probable outcome.

Japan was never any threat to the US mainland (they had a hard time supplying their forces in China, even if their army had been a match for our armor, supplying an invasion force on US soil would have been impossible), and once they attacked the United States they were finished.

TopHatter

28 Feb 05,, 04:21

Operation Downfall would've cost the Japanese anywhere between 10 and 25 million dead(along with a million plus estimated US/Allied dead).

They're better off having been nuked than to have had to face Downfall.

Agreed. Also ironically, I read that the American introduction of various pharmaceuticals and certain sanitary practices lead to a huge jump in the Japanese life expectancy (I am NOT referring to personal cleanliness. The Japanese are probably the cleanest race on Earth)

FlyingCaddy

01 Mar 05,, 05:07

Although I agree, the Axis ability to defeat the United States was slim at best, for the Japanese to have any chance, because they had the better chance of the Axis powersm They needed to Win at Midway, it would have given the Japanese an opportunity to capture Hawaii. With or Without Hawaii, the sweeping of the American Navy from the Pacific would allow the Japanese to conduct raids from Dutch Harbor to LA with impunity. IT would have driven fear into the American Public, probably led to a significant change in America's political composition, and perhaps a significant change in American war aims. The last point is crutial (im sorry I cant spell), Midway allowed the US to focus the majority of its forces at Europe not the Pacific, even if the US could reassemble a fleet in 43 or early 44, The amout of effort used to protect the West Coast from invasion, raids, and assure public safety would give Hitler that much time to 1) hold on to N. Africa, 2) Concolidate his position in Italy, 3) his position in France, 4) perhaps dog it out with Stalin and force the Soviets into a temporary peace treaty (its a known fact Stalin threatened a peace treaty with hitler if the Western Allies did not invade Frace in 44 but its even more possible he would give up hope on the Americans after losing to the Japanese and perhaps a failed invasion of Italy). And if the Japanese could execute a successful invasion of the West Coast, whether by courage or dumb luck, that would be a HUGE problem for American strategy. Think of all the point I just brought up and multiply them by 100.

bonehead

01 Mar 05,, 06:19

A japanese full scale invasion of the us mainland west coast would have been suicidal and short lived. They lacked the air support. In the pacific northwest, for instance, the japanees would also face a civilian sniper behind every tree (in addition to the regular army detatchments.) The best they could do is limited actions. Get in Destroy and get out.
If they had won at coral sea and midway, the japanese would have the pacific for only a year at most. The U.S. ship production was already cranking up production and would have replaced the early losses by then. The war in the pacific would only last a year to eighteen months longer.

The best the hitler could hope for is for the japanese to draw more of the united states troops and attention from the european theater. Even if the early pacific battles were lost, I still doubt the U.S. would have abandoned England.

lwarmonger

01 Mar 05,, 21:58

And if the Japanese could execute a successful invasion of the West Coast, whether by courage or dumb luck, that would be a HUGE problem for American strategy. Think of all the point I just brought up and multiply them by 100.

They weren't capable of it though. They lacked the ability to supply such a force, and they didn't have the troops to spare (China and Manchuria used most of the IJA). Even if they had won at Midway and managed to take Hawai, the United States had already decided on a "Germany first" policy, and so pretty much all that achieving those victories would have done was push off the Japanese defeat by a year. American operations against Germany would have been unaffected.

EPA

01 Mar 05,, 22:31

Yah, The name Sea lion came from the game but there was an invasion of Britan planned by hitler that was never launched. Right But if Hitler occupied Britan he would have no Monty to deal with in africa. He could have built up his forces in Germany, France, Britan and Africa. Come on How could the Canadians and Americans invade buy themselfs. Even so they could not get by The German U-boat infested Atlantic. Yes they could invade Scandinavia where the U-boats came from. Wern't They ready to do that once but called it off and decide to Raid Dieepe instead. Say they invade Scandinavia they still needed to Reclaim Britan Bombers from the mainland could bomb the hell out of the Americans. The German bombers have a clear shot to AMerica and could start bombing it. Hitler should have kept the non- aagression pact with Russia he could have dealed with them later.

BONEHEAD THIS IS YOUR RESPONSE

EPA

01 Mar 05,, 22:44

Right, but they should have moved more men into the islands forget China just go on the Defensive. Beacuse what they coul'nt see there butts were being kicked worse by the Americans i looked and seen that on all islands the Japs lost like 3 times the amount of the Americans fighting. Mabey there would be alot less dead if they did'nt do those insane Banzi attacks. Hay come on run away live to fight another day. They may have won a few battles if they ran away and would have had strong lines.

bonehead

01 Mar 05,, 23:44

If I am not mistaken, there is nowhere to run off to when you are on an island. Japan was only able to move troops early in the war. During the later stages of the war the japanese army was basically stranded on the islands as the U.S. navy controlled most of the seas. The japanese army would rather die than face defeat, and they got their wish.

Officer of Engineers

01 Mar 05,, 23:54

Yah, The name Sea lion came from the game but there was an invasion of Britan planned by hitler that was never launched.

You should have study history instead of playing computer games. Operation SEALION is an actual invasion plan by the Wehrmacht for Great Britain. Every study on it said the invasion as planned would not have worked.

Right But if Hitler occupied Britan he would have no Monty to deal with in africa.

That is assuming the Brits surrendered. The RN still controlled the Mediterranean. The Brits still had an empire from which they could get supplies and troops. India alone could swamp Germany.

He could have built up his forces in Germany, France, Britan and Africa. Come on How could the Canadians and Americans invade buy themselfs.

Island hopping.

Even so they could not get by The German U-boat infested Atlantic.

Yes, we did. The Royal Canadian Navy won the Battle of the Atlantic.

Yes they could invade Scandinavia where the U-boats came from. Wern't They ready to do that once but called it off and decide to Raid Dieepe instead. Say they invade Scandinavia they still needed to Reclaim Britan Bombers from the mainland could bomb the hell out of the Americans. The German bombers have a clear shot to AMerica and could start bombing it. Hitler should have kept the non- aagression pact with Russia he could have dealed with them later.

This is so ludicrous that it ain't worth replying to.

Right, but they should have moved more men into the islands

They're islands. They're only so big. You can't fit more men onto them even if you wanted to.

FlyingCaddy

02 Mar 05,, 16:09

A japanese full scale invasion of the us mainland west coast would have been suicidal and short lived. They lacked the air support. In the pacific northwest, for instance, the japanees would also face a civilian sniper behind every tree (in addition to the regular army detatchments.) The best they could do is limited actions. Get in Destroy and get out.
If they had won at coral sea and midway, the japanese would have the pacific for only a year at most. The U.S. ship production was already cranking up production and would have replaced the early losses by then. The war in the pacific would only last a year to eighteen months longer.

The best the hitler could hope for is for the japanese to draw more of the united states troops and attention from the european theater. Even if the early pacific battles were lost, I still doubt the U.S. would have abandoned England.
I understand what you are saying, but the fact is more men and material would be needed to aviod such raids. I mean sure the US can build the ships but if SF and SD are destroyed, where can you dock the fleet??? Seattle? Dutch Harbor? The entire 8th Air Force would be unable to bomb Germany, why? Becasue the 8th AF would be on patrol duty to seek and destroy Japanese naval raids on the west coast. Also about the pacific Northwest, in 1944-45 the Japanese devised a ballon bomb to torch the forests using incendaries and high expolsive bombs dropped from ballons flying on the jetstream. The main reason the plan failed is the Japanese gave up after hearing no reports about any bombs hitting America. With the ability to lauch far more accurate air strikes into some of the forests, naminly Oregon and Washington, men would have to be diverted from the War effort to fire control. For argument sake lets say the Japanese lauching but one raid, and in that one raid they committ atrocities that are equal to the rape of nanking and basically rase one the West Coast larger cities. Could Roosevelt still insist on the Europe First policy? I doubt it, the american Public in the West would feel they are valued less than the English by an East Coast Anglophile. Such an act would forestall most if not all American operations in the European Theatre.

Also a defeat at midway can make the British position in India more precarious, instead of Imphal, perhaps the japanese launch an amphibious attack in the Bay of Bengal, or at least provide naval and air support for an attack along the Burma coast.

IMO, Midway is a watershed in WWII and it cannot be discounted as just another battle, there was so much at stake and an American failure there could easily have led to an Allied defeat in one or both theatres. In essence look not just at what the Japanese could gain but what they would not have lost.

EPA

02 Mar 05,, 22:36

Jes, Lay off i mean before the Battle of the atlantic. Ok i am only 12 you know i know alot for my age. More than alot, alot would be an embarresment. Plus, i do study History every day but i did'nt look into Sea Lion..... O what a crime i should be Hanged! Alright, where did the U-boats come from i thought it was Norway. What is wrong with me stating the truth on Operation Jubillie. They were going to raid norway but called it off and raided Dieepe. O yes, and tell me what video game is The Dieepe raid is in. The islands were big enough to send more troops to on Guadalcanel there were several landings by the Japenese. Yah, The one mile long Betio but not Guadalcanel. What is wrong with the Japs they never repelled one assult on their islands. One more thing i got some new books i am reading my knowledge of not only WW2 but all Time periods is expanding.

EPA

02 Mar 05,, 22:41

Get off my back on sea lion. What the heck what islands there are no islands in the Atlantic exept Greenland, Iceland and mabey some small ones how can you station a whole invasion force on Iceland and Smaller ones not even on the map.

EPA

02 Mar 05,, 22:44

Come on, no where to run to. Guadelcanel was big enough to retreat. The marines were almost starving to death they should have attacked at weaker spots. Yah, mabey retreat to the beach and fight from there if you fighting on an island like Betio.

Officer of Engineers

03 Mar 05,, 00:16

Jes, Lay off i mean before the Battle of the atlantic. Ok i am only 12 you know i know alot for my age. More than alot, alot would be an embarresment.

I'm 4 times your age and as much as you think you know, you don't know squat.

Plus, i do study History every day but i did'nt look into Sea Lion..... O what a crime i should be Hanged!

You should shut the hell up and learn from your elders, boy.

Alright, where did the U-boats come from i thought it was Norway. What is wrong with me stating the truth on Operation Jubillie. They were going to raid norway but called it off and raided Dieepe. O yes, and tell me what video game is The Dieepe raid is in.

1) I'm retired Canadian Forces.
2) My regiment was involved in that raid.
3) It was Royal Military College material
4) The person who authorized Operation JUBLILEE was Lord Montbatten, commanded by Major-General H. Roberts, Commanding Officer, 2nd Canadian Division

5) Stay off the video games.

The islands were big enough to send more troops to on Guadalcanel there were several landings by the Japenese. Yah, The one mile long Betio but not Guadalcanel. What is wrong with the Japs they never repelled one assult on their islands. One more thing i got some new books i am reading my knowledge of not only WW2 but all Time periods is expanding.

You know squat all. There was not enough room for another divisional front. So, why would you want to send more men in, sitting around doing nothing?

lwarmonger

03 Mar 05,, 00:27

Right, but they should have moved more men into the islands forget China just go on the Defensive.

They had already lost hundreds of thousands of men in China. To most Japanese, even in the High Command, China and Indonesia were the main war, and America was a sideshow (at least until America began it's bombing raids. It was inconcievable that Japan would just write China off in order to hold some worthless islands in the Pacific, and the High Command recognized that a seaborne invasion of the United States was impossible to win.

Blademaster

03 Mar 05,, 07:07

I'm 4 times your age and as much as you think you know, you don't know squat.

You should shut the hell up and learn from your elders, boy.

1) I'm retired Canadian Forces.
2) My regiment was involved in that raid.
3) It was Royal Military College material
4) The person who authorized Operation JUBLILEE was Lord Montbatten, commanded by Major-General H. Roberts, Commanding Officer, 2nd Canadian Division

5) Stay off the video games.

You know squat all. There was not enough room for another divisional front. So, why would you want to send more men in, sitting around doing nothing?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! *wiping tears from my eye*

HahahahaHAHAHAHAHAhahaha!!!!!!

Bill

03 Mar 05,, 11:27

Sort of like the idiots that wanted another US division or two in the 2d Iraq war.

Kuwait lacked the breadth and depth for any more US forces than were already used, and to be honest, was not even big enough for those.

EPA

03 Mar 05,, 15:56

Only this guy will try to pick a fight on a website, lol. Sure i don't know squat about this subject. Trust me i've seen people who don't even know What the Hell their talking about. I am not talking about a game i saw this on the History channel. Wait, 4 times my age makes you only 48 how could you have participated in the Raid you wern't even born yet. Plus, i already know about Lord mountbatten the Rangers were lead by Darby. If you multiply my knowledge of WW2 times 4 i think i would know as much as you mabey even more. But i will not go around on the internet picking fights with young children all you "elders" are the same. There is a man by my house who his house is vandelliesed and he blames me and goes outside and threatens little kids when nobody is around. My name ain't boy you can call me EPA. Please ask me a question if you want anything ill know something about it.

Bill

03 Mar 05,, 21:03

Respect is earned, it is not bestowed.

If you don't like the label 'boy', stop acting like one.

troung

03 Mar 05,, 21:26

"The Japanese army was only a slightly more advanced version of a WWI army and it was all engaged in China."

Well not really. But the point is taken.

"While poorly armed by US standards, Japanese infantry and Marine forces were TREMENDOUSLY highly motivated, and generally well led. They were also spread throughout the Pacific in huge numbers....they were NOT all in China as you state."

Their biggest weakness was logistics and the lack of supplies for combat units. Japan cut their baggage train to free up men for line duties. Of course the conquest of Malaysia was done on captured supplies from the British. They also did not come up with as many supplies as we did for our troops.

"Thank god for the AVG though. Without the Tigers all of Asia could've been lost to the Japanese."

Well most of Burma did fall and pretty much the rest of Asia minus large parts of China and some parts Papua New Guinea did fall. The Japanese were still in Indochina and Indonesia up to the end of the war in force. The post war Indonesian military was founded off Japanese equipment including planes, tanks and artillery.

If Japan had really wanted to win the war they should have never attacked the USA and the Philippines and simply taken Indonesia, Indochina and Malaysia which had much of the resources they needed. Thailand went into the Axis and allowed Japan in and even declared war on us :rolleyes: . Of course Burma and India would have also needed to be taken. It would have been hard for the USA to get in the war to save Dutch, French and British colonies when two of those nations had already fallen. Of course that would have left the Philippines and America a possible thorn but woudl have freed up a lot of troops and freed up more as theyt would not have been fighting us.

Really once we showed up the writing was on the wall in the Pacific...

EPA

03 Mar 05,, 22:44

No not to keep some worthless islands but to keep the enemy away from your home. Did't the japs realize that the Americans were heading for the mainland. Japan and that they were bigger threats then the Brits and Chineese.

EPA

03 Mar 05,, 22:50

Ok, what is wrong with you people all you wanna argue about other things than the topic at hand. What did you do to earn M21 Sniper as a name. How do you earn EPA as a name how do i win respect on this website. Out talking rude people.

troung

03 Mar 05,, 22:57

"No not to keep some worthless islands but to keep the enemy away from your home. Did't the japs realize that the Americans were heading for the mainland. Japan and that they were bigger threats then the Brits and Chineese."

Boy Indonesia had huge reserves and that is what Japan needed to fuel their military so I would not call them "worthless" islands. Indochina had big tin, rubber, rice and other reserves needed for the Japanese. Malaysia also had large tin and rubber stocks which were needed.

The only way for Japan to really have won was to not fight America in the first place.

"What did you do to earn M21 Sniper as a name."

He was a US Army SNIPER and use an M-21 SNIPER rifle.

"How do you earn EPA as a name how do i win respect on this website."

Show a real knowledge of facts and have the ability to apply them to a range of different topics.

EPA

04 Mar 05,, 00:33

But my name EPA or you can call me Boy until i earn EPA says it all i know all about humans poluting the inviorment and the kind of Pollutants we emit. EPA (Enviormental Protection Agentcy) is something that discribes it. My best subject Is D-Day there is not one thing i don't know about June the 6th i say you can try me. I give you my Word i will not look it up. Old medieval and ancient history i find more interesting than modern.

dalem

04 Mar 05,, 03:51

Only this guy will try to pick a fight on a website, lol. Sure i don't know squat about this subject. Trust me i've seen people who don't even know What the Hell their talking about. I am not talking about a game i saw this on the History channel. Wait, 4 times my age makes you only 48 how could you have participated in the Raid you wern't even born yet. Plus, i already know about Lord mountbatten the Rangers were lead by Darby. If you multiply my knowledge of WW2 times 4 i think i would know as much as you mabey even more. But i will not go around on the internet picking fights with young children all you "elders" are the same. There is a man by my house who his house is vandelliesed and he blames me and goes outside and threatens little kids when nobody is around. My name ain't boy you can call me EPA. Please ask me a question if you want anything ill know something about it.

Hush, child. Go read a book, and be seen, not heard.

-dale

EPA

04 Mar 05,, 21:17

You Hush why is everyone against me on this thing. I am seen

Bill

04 Mar 05,, 22:59

Probably because you have waded into a pool of sharks and are now flailing about with chum in your hands...

lwarmonger

05 Mar 05,, 00:32

Probably because you have waded into a pool of sharks and are now flailing about with chum in your hands...

Hey now, he may be inexperienced, but given his age he does know a surprising amount about history. Far more than your average American (although that isn't saying much, it is intended as a compliment). Given a few years, he may become quite the historian.

EPA, the reason that everyone is criticizing you is twofold. First, your spelling and grammer need work. If you wish to be taken seriously, improve the manner in which you speak, and act like an adult. Two, add depth to your analysis. The way you examine history is very superficial. You seem to look at things from your American perspective half a century later, not from the point of view of the Japanese High Command at the time. Japan did not wish to fight the United States, but it required the resources that Indonesia possessed in order to avoid economic collapse and continue it's war in China. It knew that the United States would not just stand by and watch while it helped itself to the British and Dutch possessions in the Pacific, so the US Pacific Fleet would have to be crippled in order to prevent interferance in the oil routes to Japan. However, this war was necessary in order to continue the main conflict in China, and that was the goal of the Japanese Army (which was fairly dominant in decision making). Japan had been fighting in China since 1937 (that was the Marco Polo Bridge incident, they'd actually gotten involved earlier), and had lost hundreds of thousands of men there by the time that the United States began the oil embargo that made them look to conquest for oil supplies. How could they withdraw from China with those kinds of losses, and without actually being defeated? Economically, it also wasn't an option, as many of the raw materials (coal, iron, ect) used in Japanese industry came from conquered areas in China.

The bottom line is, you have to remember that hindsight is 20-20, but you also must remember that the planners at the time had certain goals. Japan's paramount goal in 1941 wasn't to avoid being conquered by the United States (didn't seem too likely at the time), it was to secure the resources needed to finish the conflict in China successfully. Look at it from the perspective of those making the decisions, and you will get a much better analysis of what went wrong and why.

EPA

05 Mar 05,, 02:35

Then how do i get out of this so called "Pool of Sharks"

EPA

05 Mar 05,, 02:56

Please, just don't call me an American you are very kind for the comments but my family came over here in 1993 from Slovakia or was it Czechoslovakia at the time? I came from a city called Brezno it is close to a river. My father came from Germany my Mother and Grandma are Slovak. But my Father was Half German and half Russian. I know good russian when i visited them i picked it up they taught me. Please call me Slovak instead. But the Japanese fought The Sino Japanese War in Shanghi, 1932 so they were fighting on and off with the Chinesse until the outbreak of war with the United States. They wanted to Counquer all of East Asia correct. They started messing with the Chinese beacuse of a Depression and invaded Manchuria to build a better econemy then the Japenese split from the League of Nations. The first time i heard the fought the Chinesse was during The Manchurian inncident. Is that enough information for you or do i need to go deeper.

Parihaka

05 Mar 05,, 03:00

Then how do i get out of this so called "Pool of Sharks"
Whether your 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 etc et cetera there will always be someone who knows more about any given topic than you do, get used to it, most of the rest of us have. If they disagree with you, ask them politely why? If they just slap you down, ignore them. Iwarmonger is happy to fill in the gaps for you, others will be as well. Above all else, don't take it personally. You've got balls EPA, good luck :)

EPA

05 Mar 05,, 03:02

One more thing i only know a little about the problums between The Chinesse and Japanese so the beganing of the Real war between the started with the Marco Polo bridge Incident. I'll look into that.

Bill

05 Mar 05,, 23:28

My point was that instead of listening to those who have real knowledge here, he instead started a pissing match with them.

Not too smart.

lwarmonger

06 Mar 05,, 00:45

Please, just don't call me an American you are very kind for the comments but my family came over here in 1993 from Slovakia or was it Czechoslovakia at the time?

If you do not wish to be called American, then perhaps it is better not to list your location. Also, you'll notice that I didn't call you American, I called your perspective American. Since you seem to have grown up here, I would say that it is safe to call your viewpoint American, even if you do not consider yourself to be one. However, your point is taken, and I will not call you an American in the future (although I may refer to your viewpoint as such).[/QUOTE]

But the Japanese fought The Sino Japanese War in Shanghi, 1932 so they were fighting on and off with the Chinesse until the outbreak of war with the United States. They wanted to Counquer all of East Asia correct. They started messing with the Chinese beacuse of a Depression and invaded Manchuria to build a better econemy then the Japenese split from the League of Nations. The first time i heard the fought the Chinesse was during The Manchurian inncident. Is that enough information for you or do i need to go deeper.

Correct, the Japanese involvement in China during this period does date back to 1932, however the protracted, main conflict did not start until 1937. The Japanese puppet government of Manchukuo is actually a pretty interesting thing to read up on.

lwarmonger

06 Mar 05,, 00:53

My point was that instead of listening to those who have real knowledge here, he instead started a pissing match with them.

Not too smart.

Yeah EPA, expect OoE to be more knowledgable than you in most matters concerning history, I've met very few that have as much military historical knowledge (and sources to back it up) then he. Don't worry if he out argues you, just learn from it, and only seriously argue about subjects you have a fair amount of knowledge on.

Never take an arguement personally. If you get insulted, respond, but do so in a mature fashion. My advice for debate.

:biggrin:

EPA

07 Mar 05,, 17:08

Yah, i know the Marco polo bridge incident started the Japenesse campain in CHina 1937. I am still learning about the Puppet state Manchuko in Manchuria this is not my best subject i am only 12. I am a slovak and have contacts there i will move there before if ever All of Europe unites.

EPA

07 Mar 05,, 17:16

Hay, i am listening and learning from them why don't you shut- up. Just all of you calm down once again i am only 12 i for my age have alot of knowledge. You can call Real knowledge. I am no American i am a European. That is it i don't want to fight i want to learn. Yes, you all have more knowledge than me so i will post you can fill in the gaps. Did any one of you know as much as me when you were 12. So you can all say i know as much as you. Alright, i'll be the more mature one and end this argument unless you want to continue. I'm sorry if i offended all of you this is not intended for those who were nice. I am not whinning either while i write this.

lwarmonger

07 Mar 05,, 17:37

I am still learning about the Puppet state Manchuko in Manchuria this is not my best subject i am only 12. I am a slovak and have contacts there i will move there before if ever All of Europe unites.

Another word of advice. Stop bringing up your age whenever you post. Most people will not see that as a good excuse for ignorance, and neither do I. Just post, and research what you do not know. That is what I do. If you are posting on a site like this, and offering your opinion on topics like this, then it is expected that you will be able to back up your arguements with something (and form coherant arguements to begin with). There are some, like Luldapull who do not even try, but no one takes them seriously, and since I can see that you wish to be taken seriously, the best way to do that is downplay your youth.

As for the rest of your comment, I remember when I was young and idealistic! Hard to believe that was all of 8 years ago. I thought that I could change the world too, once upon a time. Then a group of drill instructors showed me the light! Now I'm just a highly expendable tool.

:)

Bill

08 Mar 05,, 01:19

"Hay, i am listening and learning from them why don't you shut- up"

Real slow learner i see.

EPA

08 Mar 05,, 01:57

I am a pretty fast learner you'll be suprised and how is have lots of knowledge of History going to change the world.

Bill

08 Mar 05,, 03:00

Amazing you've managed to amass so much knowledge considering you tell people who could teach you much to shut up.

lwarmonger

08 Mar 05,, 04:43

"Hay, i am listening and learning from them why don't you shut- up"

Real slow learner i see.

How about both of you knock it off and save your bickering for elsewhere. This is pointless.

EPA

08 Mar 05,, 20:59

One more and thats what i said o 4 or 5 days back but these 4 year olds can't exept a truce.

EPA

08 Mar 05,, 21:03

Who eles have i told to shut- up nobody beacuse they wern't as rude as you. You can teach me anything mabey that last guy or Office of Engineers can but not you. I am offering a truce please do you wanna be coming home every day and writing long messeges arguing about how smart i am. So will you exept a truce or keep fighting (keep in mind you have nothing to gain)

Martin

09 Mar 05,, 03:47

Before I even say anything... Please bring this thread back on topic. If not, you will be banned. Its simple. Childish behaviour, flaming etc - not acceptable. Debate not dictate.

America seems to think that the british would have lost without help.

In ww1 - not the case. It just would have taken longer.

In ww2 - possibly. Popular belief is that America 'helpded' its ally. This is not true. We are still paying for the arms to this day. At an inflated price, with interest.

Bill

09 Mar 05,, 12:23

"In ww2 - possibly. Popular belief is that America 'helpded' its ally. This is not true. We are still paying for the arms to this day. At an inflated price, with interest."

The US 'possibly' helped GB in WWII?

Interesting analysis... :rolleyes:

How selfish of us to expect deferred payment(60 years later and counting) for the literally thousands of planes, vehicles, and ships we gave you in advance of any payment whatsoever- and at a serious discount.

And what of the Cold War? Did we 'possibly' assist in that victory as well?

lemontree

09 Mar 05,, 12:51

How selfish of us to expect deferred payment(60 years later and counting) for the literally thousands of planes, vehicles, and ships we gave you in advance of any payment whatsoever- and at a serious discount.
Just one quary.
These credit facilities would have been given to GB much after the US had entered the war. Prior to that GB was bled almost dry for the tanks and planes, since they paid hard cash. Am I correct?
Quite ironic, I would say. Since the British Empire bled most of their colonies dry of all the wealth, then they get squeezed by the Yanks and now these former colonies are squeezing the US of money in the form of financial aid. The circle of life. :)

Parihaka

09 Mar 05,, 16:01

At the end of WWII America sent us (NZ) a bill for defending our country. We sent one back for defending American interests in North Africa and Italy, as well as a bill for providing accomodation (and child support) for when the GI's were stationed here. Surprisingly the bill totals happened to cancel each other out :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers

09 Mar 05,, 16:12

Do you happen to have the details?

Parihaka

09 Mar 05,, 16:14

no more so than it's something my grandfather told me, may just be a myth, I'll look it up

Officer of Engineers

09 Mar 05,, 16:14

My thanks in advance.

Parihaka

09 Mar 05,, 17:45

Here's a link, as usual the actual details are at variance with the 'myth'. New Zealand was defended by the Americans under a lend-lease agreement. in return there was a reverse lend-lease agreement for services in supplying goods and services, not just in New Zealand but throughout the Pacific theatre. The two bills added up to nz pounds 82 million billed by NZ vs nz pounds 150 million billed by The US (included purchase of American surplus equipment post WWII). In 1946 the difference was written off. Here's a couple of quotes and link:
http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/WH2Econ/

Under Reverse Lend-Lease, New Zealand supplied the United States with goods and services which, for accounting purposes, have been set down at £82 million. A similar quantity2 of goods and services for war purposes was received from the United States under Lend-Lease. Nevertheless the sacrifice for New Zealand was high. All these transactions were concerned with the war effort and a very considerable proportion of the £82 million supplied by New Zealand, and, in effect, exchanged for war supplies, was in the form of goods which would have been available to earn foreign exchange had it not been for the war. In fact, the largescale diversion of foreign-exchange-earning exports to become non-earning supplies to allies in the Pacific was to cause considerable alarm in 1942 and later, when it was feared that New Zealand would be left with quite inadequate funds to pay for needed imports

In July 1946 an agreement was signed between the United States of America and New Zealand, terminating the reciprocal aid arrangements between them.4 No payment was to be made by either country for goods or services supplied under the arrangement up to 21 December 1945. Subject to certain provisions about the transfer of munitions to any other country, each was to retain possession of goods supplied under the reciprocal arrangement. In addition it was agreed that New Zealand would purchase certain United States equipment which was then in the Pacific area for a sum of approximately $5,500,000, equivalent to about £1,700,000 in New Zealand currency. This sum was to be used by the United States Government to purchase real estate and construct United States Government buildings in New Zealand, and ‘for the furtherance of cultural relations of mutual benefit to the two countries’.
4Parliamentary Paper A–8.
Elaborating on the purchase of surplus war property, the acting Minister of Finance, Mr Sullivan said:5
5Dominion, 11 July 1946.
‘In addition to the discussions which have now been completed concerning mutual cancellation of lend-lease and reciprocal aid, negotiations have been in progress during recent months on the separate question of the purchase by the New Zealand Government of quantities of American surplus war material situated both in this country and in the Pacific. This includes items such as earthmoving machinery, steel huts and hangars, civilian type aircraft, radio and navigational equipment, together with a large quantity of miscellaneous stores all in very short supply here, and which could not be obtained elsewhere. Satisfactory arrangements have been made to pay for this material without the necessity for immediate provision of dollar funds, by setting off the purchase price against contemplated expenditure by the United States authorities within New Zealand.’
Further details of the surplus equipment purchased were given by Mr Sullivan two days later:1
1Evening Post, 13 July 1946.
‘The items include civilian type aircraft, together with spares; the Minister stated that arrangements are also being completed for the purchase of aviation aids necessary for internal air services and in connection with the Dominion's responsibilities on the international air route and for Pacific regional services.
‘The surplus property purchased from the United States forces includes materials purchased in New Zealand and in the Pacific. The following are the principal items involved in the purchase. Earth moving equipment and plant of a similar type, $2,274,000; hand tools for carpenters, engineers, etc., $55,000; miscellaneous textiles, $55,000; timber, 862,000 board feet, valued at $38,000; miscellaneous steel buildings, $254,000; tyres and tubes, $250,000; miscellaneous stores of a general character taken over in New Zealand, $454,000; various items purchased outside New Zealand, $30,000. Spare parts for heavy equipment, $99,000; freight etc. on purchases ex-Pacific, $491,000.
‘These items make a total of $4,000,000.
‘In addition the New Zealand Government is acquiring certain aircraft of a civilian type, together with spares, at an estimated cost of $750,000….’
Some of the equipment purchased was of vital importance to New Zealand at a time when deferred civilian works needed to be put into operation quickly, and when supplies of suitable equipment in New Zealand had been depleted, and orders for new equipment might not be filled for some time. The final shipment of heavy equipment from the Pacific arrived in New Zealand in September 1946.

Reverse Lend-Lease supplies, valued for the whole of the war at £81 million, were excluded from export figures. From the point of view of reciprocal aid they helped to keep the balance against the Lend-Lease supplies which were flowing in from the United States. However, the record of wartime trading is distorted by inclusion of much of the inflow as imports, while the outflow did not affect the export figures. Approximately two-thirds of all food-stuffs supplied to the United States Forces were shipped out of New Zealand by them without being recorded as exports. At a rough estimate these unrecorded food exports may have been worth some £25 to £30 million. Large numbers of prefabricated huts and other supplies from New Zealand were similarly treated.

Supplies for New Zealand forces overseas were usually recorded as exports, though some supplies sent direct to New Zealand forces were excluded. While not themselves exchange earners, all these exports helped to reduce the direct cost in foreign exchange of maintaining New Zealand forces overseas.

Here also is a link to a brief history of American forces in NZ during WWII
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/brief/

FlyingCaddy

09 Mar 05,, 17:59

America seems to think that the british would have lost without help.

In ww1 - not the case. It just would have taken longer.

Or you know Allied and German armies would have gone into mutiny and all of western europe would be communist, socialist, or some degre of fascist.
Oh wait nevermind....

Bill

09 Mar 05,, 19:48

Interesting bit of history Parihaka.

Thanx for sharing. ;)

Parihaka

09 Mar 05,, 19:51

Interesting bit of history Parihaka.

Thanx for sharing. ;)
pleasure

EPA

09 Mar 05,, 21:26

Wern't the japs going to invade New Zeland beacuse of the supply line between Australia and the US. But when the Marines started fighting in Guadalcanel were they diverted to Guadalcanel.

Parihaka

09 Mar 05,, 21:39

Wern't the japs going to invade New Zeland beacuse of the supply line between Australia and the US. But when the Marines started fighting in Guadalcanel were they diverted to Guadalcanel.
The battle of the Coral sea was the furthest the IJN went in the south Pacific. They intended invading Port Moresby in New Guinea and using that as a launch for an invasion of Australia. There's a story that they proclaimed they'd only need to send a telegram to elicit New Zealands surrender if they took Australia.
Coral Sea (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm)

lwarmonger

10 Mar 05,, 00:13

America seems to think that the british would have lost without help.

In ww1 - not the case. It just would have taken longer.

In ww2 - possibly. Popular belief is that America 'helpded' its ally. This is not true. We are still paying for the arms to this day. At an inflated price, with interest.

WWI not the case? Germany broke through in France, and the French army at that point was finished. It is difficult to see how France and Britain could have stopped the final German offensive without the American troops that were present and crossing the Atlantic (thus providing reserves to counter the breakthrough, and freeing up French troops for service further north). Once Germany had conquered France, it would have been a stalemate between Germany and Britain.

WWII, there is no way that the Allies could have won without American support. As late as 1944, over two thirds of the 600000 trucks providing logistical support to the Soviet advance west were American made. The British could not have possibly retaken France, even with the bulk of the Heer in the East. The Soviet Union would have been a stalemated front at best for the allies, as Soviet logistics without American trucks were completely incapable of supplying offensives of the scale that actually occured.

Officer of Engineers

10 Mar 05,, 01:38

WWI - Every European army was at the point of exhaustion. The French Army was on the point of collapse but so was the German army. The Americans provided the fresh blood needed to win the war, no doubt but the point where Great Britain or France would lose the war was long past.

Recall on how actually the Americans won WWI. The Germans could not muster the troops to face the Fresh American army.

WWII, without the US, the map of Europe would certainly be different. I have absolutely no doubt the Soviets would have driven the Nazis out of the USSR. Whether they can march to Berlin is really debatable.

The British would have been safe because

1) Operation SEA LION would not have worked.
2) The RCN won the Battle of the Atlantic
3) The RAF won the Battle of Britain.

However, all this means is that some sort of negotiated truce with Nazi Germany.

Bill

10 Mar 05,, 01:52

"2) The RCN won the Battle of the Atlantic
3) The RAF won the Battle of Britain."

But the UK accomplished both those feats with what one could call massive materiel assistance from the US.

Not to mention the US DDEs that escorted the convoys before the US was even officially in the war.

And monger has a great point.

It's hard to maintain an offensive when you're 400,000 trucks short.

Russia would've prevailed, but it would've taken a LOT longer. Like maybe 1947 or 48 IMO.

Officer of Engineers

10 Mar 05,, 01:57

The Battle of Britain was only 60 days and the RCN produce most of its own ships.

Though there is one point I really, really hate to mention about American involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic - the Happy Times for the U-Boat in which they went almost unchallenged outside American ports, a disaster greater than Pearle Harbour which really took the pressure off the convoys.

To be fair though, both the RCN and the USN decided to protect the troop convoys and left the American ports to fend for themselves.

As for Russia, I'm thinking more 1950-52 before they finally call a truce. Stalin would had to kill the Kantum Army in Manchuria before he could move West.

Bill

10 Mar 05,, 02:21

BoB was short, but how would the brits have fared without the three(i think it was three?) volunteer US manned Eagle squadrons?

And how many aircraft did the US ship across the Atlantic in those early days?

And how about the African Campaign, where the Brits were using mostly US made tanks, and could not dislodge Rommel until well after the US Torch landings?

I doubt Sea Lion would've ever worked....under even the most favorable conditions- it was an utter joke.

But without US assistance, perhaps Churchill is forced into a 'peace with honor'.

Afterall, all Hitler wanted from the UK was a truce. He never sought to conquer them. He deeply respected the Brits.

TopHatter

10 Mar 05,, 02:45

Though there is one point I really, really hate to mention about American involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic - the Happy Times for the U-Boat in which they went almost unchallenged outside American ports, a disaster greater than Pearle Harbour which really took the pressure off the convoys.

The Happy Times were an absolute disgrace at best but I would call it criminal negligence. Good forbid the Eastern Seaboard turn off it's lights at night... :mad:

Officer of Engineers

10 Mar 05,, 03:16

But without US assistance, perhaps Churchill is forced into a 'peace with honor'.

That was my only point concerning Great Britain without USA involvement. Great Britain would have been saved by the (given the circumstances that was facing her) British Empire but the map of Europe would be completely be redrawn. We would not have seen a collapse of Nazi Germany and perhaps a Cold War between three power blocs (Capitalism, Facism, and Communism).

TopHatter

10 Mar 05,, 03:33

But without US assistance, perhaps Churchill is forced into a 'peace with honor'.
.

Having read quite a bit about Churchill recently, I can assure that Winston would have signed a 'peace with honor' in hell :)

lwarmonger

10 Mar 05,, 05:29

Having read quite a bit about Churchill recently, I can assure that Winston would have signed a 'peace with honor' in hell :)

Would it have mattered? Germany was dominant on the continent, and whether Churchill was willing to sign a peace or not, the British Army lacked the ability to defeat the Heer. Germany's industrial base (even without the conquered territories) was also far superior to that of Britain, so you have a long, protracted war with absolutely no hope of victory in site for either side, where Germany is capable of inflicting far greater damage upon Britain than Britain is in return. Whether Churchill was willing to sign a peace or not, eventually the British people would tire of such a war, and a peace would be signed (either with Churchill's consent, or after ousting him).

lwarmonger

10 Mar 05,, 05:29

That was my only point concerning Great Britain without USA involvement. Great Britain would have been saved by the (given the circumstances that was facing her) British Empire but the map of Europe would be completely be redrawn. We would not have seen a collapse of Nazi Germany and perhaps a Cold War between three power blocs (Capitalism, Facism, and Communism).

Agreed.

Officer of Engineers

10 Mar 05,, 17:30

Actually thinking this through, it would have completely redrawn the world map. Stalin cannot move West until he dealt with the Japanese and that was short work. Japan would have been under the communist banner and perhaps united all of Asia under the same.

TopHatter

10 Mar 05,, 17:56

Would it have mattered? Germany was dominant on the continent, and whether Churchill was willing to sign a peace or not, the British Army lacked the ability to defeat the Heer. Germany's industrial base (even without the conquered territories) was also far superior to that of Britain, so you have a long, protracted war with absolutely no hope of victory in site for either side, where Germany is capable of inflicting far greater damage upon Britain than Britain is in return. Whether Churchill was willing to sign a peace or not, eventually the British people would tire of such a war, and a peace would be signed (either with Churchill's consent, or after ousting him).

Bear in mind that after the Battle of Britain, Hitler basically gave up on conquering the British Isles and decided to open a can of worms with the USSR. Britain itself became small potatoes after that (except for the U-Boat campaigns).

Parihaka

10 Mar 05,, 18:17

Hmmm, the empire would've controlled the seas, with the u-boats being destroyed piece-meal by 43? Britain had gained the upper hand in the air war, and could increasingly strike deeper and deeper into the continent on a continuous basis. IMO the Germans couldn't have maintained a presence in North Africa much beyond '44 as re-supply was such a problem, with enigma detailing convoys positions their attrition rate was horrendous. So Germany is left trying to get fuel from the East but the Soviets were likely deny them that at least. So where do they get their raw materials from? Less a stalemate than a protracted resource battle. It doesn't help if you've got great tanks if you don't have the fuel to run them, the rare metals to build them, the diamonds to machine them etc etc. No wonder Hitler turned to the idea of super weapons.

Blademaster

10 Mar 05,, 18:30

Why couldn't Germany with all the captured French and other territories rebuild the maritime surface force and be a more potent force?

Is it really true that Stalin was preparing to attack Hitler first and Hitler preempted that by attacking Stalin first?

Was there any way that Hitler could discourage Stalin from attacking German forces in Poland?

If Hitler had not attacked USSR and not declared war on USA, would Roosevelt continue the land-lease program and continue military supplies to Britain?

Or would internal public pressure force Roosevelt to divert and devote all military supplies to the war in the Pacific?

I am just wondering what was the turning point that caused Germany to go into defeat, if there are any besides attacking Poland? I am wondering what other steps Germany could have taken in order to win the war. Of course we are speaking with hindsight. But let's try to make the decisions without hindsight and with all the pressures, forces, & responsibilities that the Germans had to deal with.

Parihaka

10 Mar 05,, 18:50

Why couldn't Germany with all the captured French and other territories rebuild the maritime surface force and be a more potent force?

Because of air superiority. All the ports were within easy striking distance of the RAF. All they could do is build components for small easy to assemble craft inland and then quickly assemble them on the coast before they could be destroyed i.e. U-boats, and U-boats weren't particularly effective against large convoys with asdic, they quickly became one-time suicide missions. Even if they survived, their bases were constantly under attack, the British developed bombs (Tallboys?) that could penetrate 7m of reinforced concrete.
http://www.dambusters.org.uk/brest.htm

Blademaster

10 Mar 05,, 18:54

Because of air superiority. All the ports were within easy striking distance of the RAF. All they could do is build components for small easy to assemble craft inland and then quickly assemble them on the coast before they could be destroyed i.e. U-boats, and U-boats weren't particularly effective against large convoys with asdic, they quickly became one-time suicide missions. Even if they survived, their bases were constantly under attack, the British developed bombs (Tallboys?) that could penetrate 7m of reinforced concrete.
http://www.dambusters.org.uk/brest.htm

But they could have built those shipyards in the Mediterrean Sea. As I recalled, the Luttwaffe was better than the RAF in the early years of the war. Surely they could have kept the RAFs away from the ports.

If the Luttwaffe had managed BoB better, meaning, destroying the planes, airfields, and aircraft factories instead of going after civilian populations, Luttwaffe would be in a far better position.

Parihaka

10 Mar 05,, 19:09

But they could have built those shipyards in the Mediterrean Sea. As I recalled, the Luttwaffe was better than the RAF in the early years of the war. Surely they could have kept the RAFs away from the ports.
They certainly had better experienced pilots, the aircraft were about matched, but in the BoB, while it came down to the wire, the Germans blinked first. One of the Germans big mistakes was that they didn't hold on to their experienced pilots for training but simply kept them in combat until they died, Nowotny is a classic example of this, he should never have been returned to active combat. Nowotny (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/nowotny.html). As for the Med, that was the big problem for the RAF and RN, but from memory they were increasingly gaining the upper hand as demonstated by the destruction of the vichy-French and Italian Navies and they almost totally controlled the Straights of Gibraltar, making it no more useful than a lake.

If the Luttwaffe had managed BoB better, meaning, destroying the planes, airfields, and aircraft factories instead of going after civilian populations, Luttwaffe would be in a far better position.
I've always wondered what would have happened if the Germans had maintained their attack directly on the RAF. Any ideas?

Officer of Engineers

10 Mar 05,, 19:25

If the RAF was to lose the Battle of Britain, the British and Canadian Armies and the RN would win SEA LION. Same result.

Parihaka

10 Mar 05,, 19:37

If the RAF was to lose the Battle of Britain, the British and Canadian Armies and the RN would win SEA LION. Same result.
Oh yeah, you've convinced me on SEA LION, I'm just wondering re the British ability to prosecute the war if the RAF was effectively destroyed.

Officer of Engineers

10 Mar 05,, 19:54

Fighter Command would have been destroyed but would Bomber Command? The Luftwaffle was only going after the airfields and those planes that are on those fields. They did not go after the factories and those in Canada was untouchable.

Parihaka

10 Mar 05,, 20:31

Bombing raids would have been more problematic without fighter support. Group 11 remants would have had to have been incorporated within Group 12, defending the midlands and industrial heartland, ceding superiority over the south-east to the Luftwaffe, with all the disruption to the war effort that that would entail. This would also restrict Bomber Command because flight time over Germany would have been severely restricted. I'm thinking that Bomber Command would still have restricted German use of the coastal seaports but not have much influence over German industry inland. Since the German plan for the BoB was to set the stage for SEALION and that wasn't viable it's probably moot. Due to the resupply from Canada that you mentioned, eventually control of the southeast would've been regained.

antelope

10 Mar 05,, 22:00

The smartest thing the Axis powers should have done was to avoid bringing America into the war. In general this could have been done if:

1) Germany avoided or ended its fight with Britain. Remember that France and Britain declared war on Germany first and Germany did not want to fight Britain in 1939. After the defeat of France, Germany should have openly declared that it did not want to invade Britain and believed that Britain's participation in the war was a mistake they wish could have avoided. With that being said they should have not statrted the war with Russia until the British issue was resolved. I would resolve it by simultaneouly asking for an armistice and peace treaty with Britain while focusing the entire German military machine on Britain. The American press and anti-intervention population would think Britain should end the war. I think in time Britain would sue for peace or be defeated without an American entrance to the war. After the Western War ended a year later the Germans could go after the Russians. With Russia's recent history in Finland and Poland I doubt Britain would reenter the war to support Russia. Without Britain in the war America would not enter the war in Europe.

2) With Britain a non-issue the Japanese should have stuck to their conquest of mainland Asia (minus India, Hong Kong, and Singapore) and the Dutch East Indies. A Nazi controlled Dutch government would simply sell Japan all the oil they needed. Americans in general especially in that day had no desire to fight a war to defend Asians unless we were directly attacked. With no secret goal of joining the war to save Britain and no attack at Pearl Harbor, America would have stayed neutral.

With America not in the war Nazi Germany may have ultimately triumphed over the U.S.S.R. and Japan may have held sway over China and SouthEast Asia for decades to come. The world would be a very different place today.

Blademaster

10 Mar 05,, 22:20

This brings to an interesting point. Would India been able to achieve its indepedence and the resulting colonies following?

I would say that India would have achieve their independence because there was no way that Indians were gonna tolerate another decade or century of British rule.

I am sure that the independence movement would have enlisted German help,

antelope

10 Mar 05,, 22:41

This brings to an interesting point. Would India been able to achieve its indepedence and the resulting colonies following?

I would say that India would have achieve their independence because there was no way that Indians were gonna tolerate another decade or century of British rule.

I am sure that the independence movement would have enlisted German help,

India is so large and populated that as modern media saturated British homes I see no way that the British people would themselves tolerate the colonial situation in India indefinitely or would support the kind of suppressive measures it would have taken to keep India.

I would be willing to bet the Phillipines however changed their minds about seeking independence if under constant fear of living under Japanese occupation like the rest of Asia or at least decided to make themselves an autonomous American protectorate.

lwarmonger

11 Mar 05,, 02:07

Fighter Command would have been destroyed but would Bomber Command? The Luftwaffle was only going after the airfields and those planes that are on those fields. They did not go after the factories and those in Canada was untouchable.

Would bomber command have been worth anything after fighter command had been destroyed? Unescorted bombers were easy pickings for FW-190s, and would have been even easier for Me-262s.

The Germans had much greater resources than Britain did after the fall of France, and a much larger industry. They became very distracted with the Soviet Union, however had that war not occured, or been won by Germany, there is no doubt that in a battle of attrition in the air, Germany would win. It simply comes down to a matter of numbers and technology. Technologically, Germany was the same, if not more advanced as time went on (while they did not use them, they had around 100 Me-262s by the end of the war), and certainly had a greater ability to produce planes. Neither side had the resources to launch an invasion of the other. So you end with a bloody stalemate, which Germany is better able to sustain than Britian, especially as Great Britain's empire is becoming increasingly restive, and Germany is capable of putting far more resources into taking places like the Middle East and the Suez (with the fall/non-involvement of the Soviet Union).

Ironduke

05 Dec 06,, 02:20

bump

astralis

05 Dec 06,, 20:53

thanks for the bump, ironduke, hadn't seen this thread before.

i have a quick question for OoE:

Japan would have been under the communist banner and perhaps united all of Asia under the same.

you've mentioned the USSR sweeping the kwangtung army from china, which makes complete sense. but without the US in a war in this scenario (which i don't find altogether believable, given japanese demand for southeast asian resources), how would the USSR have forced japan under a communist banner?

i can't see a russian "downfall", especially given the capabilities of the IJN un-degraded by the USN. and i think the invasion of japan- either that or a nuke ;) - would have been the only thing to force the militarists in japan to kneel to the hated bolsheviks.

Officer of Engineers

08 Dec 06,, 05:13

you've mentioned the USSR sweeping the kwangtung army from china, which makes complete sense. but without the US in a war in this scenario (which i don't find altogether believable, given japanese demand for southeast asian resources), how would the USSR have forced japan under a communist banner?

i can't see a russian "downfall", especially given the capabilities of the IJN un-degraded by the USN. and i think the invasion of japan- either that or a nuke ;) - would have been the only thing to force the militarists in japan to kneel to the hated bolsheviks.

Let's see

1) The Japanese Manchurian and Korean War industries would now be producing for the USSR

2) Half the Japanese AF and 75% of their army would be wiped out

3) How many Chinese and Korean Armies do you think Stalin could raise?

4) How many planes and bombers could Stalin field?

5) Would Stalin hesitate for one second to firebomb every Japanese city on Earth?

6) The shock of Kuangtum's Army defeat was only surpassed by the nukes themselves. Japanese invincible samuari spirit myth was shattered.

7) This was Stalin. Not even Tojo was that stupid. If the Japanese wanted a fight to the death, Stalin would obliged without thinking twice.

astralis

08 Dec 06,, 06:43

col yu,

then again, the japanese knew they were looking at complete and utter destruction with operation downfall, too. it was not for nothing that by summer of 1945, the propaganda on the Home Islands no longer talked about victory but about the "Glorious Death of 100 million".

but i see your point, though. just thought things through and realized that stalin did not need to invade the Home Islands anyway; East Asia was a distinct sideshow for him...and he just needed the resources you mentioned to fight the germans. he could deal with the japanese afterwards.

can you tell i'm thinking out loud? :redface:

hello

08 Dec 06,, 23:19

while they did not use them, they had around 100 Me-262s by the end of the war.

They did use them, but not enough. If the war had gone on, the de Havilland Vampire and Gloster Meteor(It never engaged anything but V-1s) would have arrived to counter the Me262s, and the He162 Volksjager would see service and increase Germany's jet fleet. The U.S basically destroyed Germany's aircraft making capability with B-17 and B-24 raids on factories.

SuperTrooper

07 Jan 07,, 21:15

If it wasn't for the British the Yanks wouldn't of lasted that short time in WW2 because the British had to keep pulling back and taking US positions back because the Yanks kept losing them.

Aranthus

21 Feb 07,, 16:55

They could have not been Nazi and Fascist. Their ideologies drove them to attempt conquest, and that inevitably brought them into coflict with the US in a war they could not possibly win.

As a fantasy scenario, Hitler could have gotten Poland to be his ally in an attack on the Soviet Union. That would have avoided war with England and France. Then Japan makes peace with and pulls out of China and joins Germany, Poland, Rumania and Finland in attacking the Soviet Union. The West, including the US, might have been content to sit by and let the dictatorships fight each other.

Canmoore

21 Feb 07,, 21:21

Germany's best chance to win was to beat the Soviet Union. If Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union during 1941-1943, then it is difficult to see how America could have launched a successful invasion of Europe with Germany's moblile forces not tied down elsewhere and their industrial capacity largely devoted to turning out aircraft (to beat Britian).

i dont think that it would matter at all if Germany had defeated Russia or not.

With the surrender of Italy, the boot of Europe would make as fine a landing strip as England would. Seeing as Germany could never take that isle, then it becomes a matter of bombing germanies industry into submission.

The Soviets scortched earth tactics, would have dystroyed the Oil facilities, so The Germans would not have been able to utilize that new source of Oil to offset the dystruction of Oil facilities in Germany.

gunnut

21 Feb 07,, 22:02

Knock the US out of WW2?

The best chance was in 1940 when Germany launched Sea Lion, or if they were able to. Knock the UK out of WW2. Germany swings its army around to invade USSR. Japan attacks the USSR on the east from Manchuria after the Soviet reserves are called up to the west. Maybe, just maybe, Germany and Japan could have knocked USSR out of the war.

Then sue for peace.

Knock the US out of WW2 before getting the US into WW2. That's the only way.

Once Pearl Harbor was bombed, in a cowardly fashion no less, the US would not be stopped until the Axis powers were wiped out. Japan and Germany, even with the captured territory of UK and Soviet Union, could not have matched the industrial output of the US. The war would be a lot longer and much more bloodier though...

zraver

21 Feb 07,, 23:27

If it wasn't for the British the Yanks wouldn't of lasted that short time in WW2 because the British had to keep pulling back and taking US positions back because the Yanks kept losing them.

Wow, what utter BS. While Montgomery had to take the shoulder of the Bulge in the winter of 45. The Brits did not have to rescue Yanks, although the Yanks rescued the Brits time and time again.

deadkenny

22 Feb 07,, 13:40

This really falls into 2 categories:

1. Keep the US out (at least as long as possible)

2. Defeat / force out the US once they're in.

The first category has some pretty obvious alternate strategies. Japan could have attacked Russia and / or European colonies (largely British and Dutch) in SE Asia, while avoiding the Philippines and not attacking Pearl Harbor. Clearly Germany did not have to declare war on the US.

Under the second heading, you largely end up in the realm of sci fi. Once the war started, about all Japan could do would be to try to hold on longer by an amazing series of victories. So if Midway had resulted in the loss of all the American aircraft carriers while the Japanese lost little or nothing, that would have bought them more time. In the long run, the US was capable of building and operating far more carriers than Japan, so that's why I say they could 'buy time' - i.e. take longer to defeat. In the meantime, Germany would need to defeat the Soviet Union and then Britain, before the US could significantly intervene. At that point you have a Germany dominating Europe and a Japan that is at least still fighting - that's where you start to go beyond the limits of historical speculation and into the realm of sci fi.

Dreadnought

22 Feb 07,, 14:05

Knock the US out of WW2?

The best chance was in 1940 when Germany launched Sea Lion, or if they were able to. Knock the UK out of WW2. Germany swings its army around to invade USSR. Japan attacks the USSR on the east from Manchuria after the Soviet reserves are called up to the west. Maybe, just maybe, Germany and Japan could have knocked USSR out of the war.

Then sue for peace.

Knock the US out of WW2 before getting the US into WW2. That's the only way.

Once Pearl Harbor was bombed, in a cowardly fashion no less, the US would not be stopped until the Axis powers were wiped out. Japan and Germany, even with the captured territory of UK and Soviet Union, could not have matched the industrial output of the US. The war would be a lot longer and much more bloodier though...

Agreed Gun,
Once Pearl Harbor was bombed there was no stopping it. Alot of people tend to believe the U.S. couldnt do much afterwards but as they found out it was the match to the wildfire. The USN did not in any way need to raise those ships (Battleships,Cruisers,Destroyers,lighters etc.) from the mud of Pearls bottom. They did so as a matter of pride in the USN more then need. The idea of sailors trapped and drowning in the overturned ship hulls, along with Pearls death total not only stirred mass hatred for the Japanese in the military but also among the civilian population after FDR's Dec.8th speach before Congress declaring War. Every single person in this country was glued to the radio that evening and came away with the exact same idea...Destroy Japan by any and all means necessary. But first we must get there and to get there we need a nation to become one. Needless to say recruitment stations overflowed for years to follow.

omon

22 Feb 07,, 14:34

i think the best way would be, to keep us from entering the war, once it's in, us wouldn't stop.

Dreadnought

22 Feb 07,, 14:44

If it wasn't for the British the Yanks wouldn't of lasted that short time in WW2 because the British had to keep pulling back and taking US positions back because the Yanks kept losing them.

Short time? I think you need a serious history lesson of WWII. I wont even honor that comment with a reply.:rolleyes:

Dreadnought

22 Feb 07,, 15:19

"Pearl Harbour (the movie) is playing on TV as I type and that must have seemed like a good idea to the Japanese at the time. Perhaps if the aircraft carriers had been caught???"

Bingo.

The US carriers go down at Pearl, and the entire war in Pacific is written completely differently...at least until 1943. Had the US lost at Midway in 42, the entire US west coast would've been naked to a Japanese invasion.

Long time no see. I hope all is well with you and yours.;)

glyn

22 Feb 07,, 15:53

Hang on. Wasn't the self-called Super Trooper banned for being an unpleasant troll? We can forget what he said.:mad:

SnowLeopard

22 Feb 07,, 16:34

That's easy.

Hitler should not have declared war on the United States. Ie, Japan attacks Pearl. US declares war on Japan. Hitler, as their ally, declares war on the US. US then declares war on Germany. (I think it was, the war declaring, a three day sequence).

But if Hitler had stepped back and not declared war, then it might have been very difficult for the US government to find the motivation to declare war on Germany. Remember, there had been an undeclared naval war going on, already, in the Fall of 1941. US ships attacked but that's not enough, probably nowhere near enough, for the US to engage in open war with Germany.

Without Germany having to fight another enemy, the outcome could have been somewhat different.
-------------------------------------------
("Do not fire unless fired upon."--CAG "Stinger", (wtte), "Top Gun")

deadkenny

22 Feb 07,, 16:55

...
But if Hitler had stepped back and not declared war, then it might have been very difficult for the US government to find the motivation to declare war on Germany. Remember, there had been an undeclared naval war going on, already, in the Fall of 1941. US ships attacked but that's not enough, probably nowhere near enough, for the US to engage in open war with Germany.
...

Definitely agree with this. Even if the US had ultimately ended up at war with Germany, any delay would have been to the advantage of Germany. It would also have been a lot harder to 'sell' a 'Germany First' approach in that context. Even as it was, many high up in the US military were questioning the early commitment to Europe (e.g. Adm. King) and would have preferred to make Japan the priority target.

zraver

22 Feb 07,, 16:59

Keeping the US out of WW2 means finding a way to keep FDR out of the White House and replacing him with a much more strict isolationist. The problem is by 1941 the US in entering a boom after the Great Depression and keeping England and Russia in the fight was in the US best interests economically.

To force the US out of the war from 1941 on is impossible. The only real chance would have been enough U-boats properly used in 39/40 to force England from the war via starvation.